Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday January 17, 2014 @12:43PM
from the we-only-want-what-we-can't-have dept.

jfruh writes "Who says Americans are politically apathetic? The FCC's proposal to allow cellular data — and, if the airline allows it, voice calls — on airplanes unleashed a flood of responses even before the official comment period began this week. The sentiment was overwhelmingly opposed to people talking on phones in flight. Some correspondents spun terrifying hypotheticals about yapping teens, some accused FCC chair Tom Wheeler of flying on private planes and being out of touch with the full-on horror of in-flight chatter, and one person concluded their letter with the word 'no' with letter 'o' repeated 213 times."

While I find the idea of being trapped next to someone making a phone call on a plane loathsome, the FCC really shouldn't be in the position of banning things just because they're annoying. If there's no technical/safety reason to ban the calls, allow them. The AIRLINES, on the other hand, really SHOULD ban these calls, and most have already said that they would.

1. Net neutrality isn't banned, it's just that the FCC would need to issue new rules to enforce it. The court specifically said that the FCC _could_ enforce net neutrality rules, if it classified ISPs under title II (as common carriers).

2. Even if the rules had remained in place, it wouldn't have prevented inflight providers from blocking certain apps for network performance reasons (Gogo does this this today with video services like Netflix or HBO Go), so long as they were evenhanded abou

Has your evening or weekend been disrupted by a call from a telemarketer? If so, you're not alone. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been receiving complaints in increasing numbers from consumers throughout the nation about unwanted and uninvited calls to their homes from telemarketers.

If no-phone-calls is a good public policy, then there's absolutely no reason to leave its enforcement in private hands.Make it a law and put the weight of the State behind it.

I also don't see how a US government organisation can ban the act of speech for a non-safety related reason - surely that would violate freedom of speech?

Once the FCC and FAA concluded it was no longer a safety concern, their remit for control of it expired and the only entities that could ban it on "annoyance" grounds would be the airlines that operate the aircraft.

Yes, but individual public libraries aren't the federal government banning them wholesale across an entire swath of private property. Individual libraries have the right to make that decision for themselves. Perhaps they would want to provide specific areas where people could use cell phones, thus people that don't want to be around them can simply stay away from that area. Similarly, why couldn't airlines sell seats in specific sections of the plane (the back perhaps?) where cell phone calls were allowed? That shouldn't be up to the FCC since cell phones have been proven to not crash airplanes through their EMF emissions.

But I'm not sure that is banning "speech" as it is about banning "speaking". The first is the expression of thought which aligns more with the interpretation of speech in the first amendment. The second is an act of producing sounds from your mouth, which is banned without regard to content.

And then again, I don't know if public libraries actually kick you out if you are talking.

The librarian may request you to stop talking or to go outside to talk, and others may give you an evil eye, but I'm not sure I've heard of the police dragging someone out. Even if that happened, I would think it would be on grounds of disturbing the peace.

"But I'm not sure that is banning "speech" as it is about banning "speaking"."

There are probably think-tanks that would pay to have someone with your ability to contort logic into previously unthinkable directions. Also have you considered becoming a corporate attorney?

Doesn't matter. Free speech isn't anything you folks are arguing about. Free speech is not being arrested by the Government for expressing your opinion. Even then, good luck threatening to kill someone, or the famous "Yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater".

Free speech was never about a person's unadulterated right to say whatever they want, whenever they want to, and no response from anyone else allowed.

All of which is to say that if some asshat starts talking on their phone in the plane, and the other passengers beat the bejabbers out of him, the asshat can have them arrested for assault, but his freedom of speech has not been abridged.

I'm not sure where these polite Asian countries are that you are referring to, unless possibly you mean Japan. Certainly in China people have no qualms about talking on their phone anywhere, even in the middle of an opera. "Guess where I am. I'm at the opera! Listen!". She seemed quite put out when I glared at her for that. Seriously, most Americans are a picture of self-restraint when it comes to cellphone use compared to almost anywhere in Asia outside of Japan.

It's the FCC. Their argument will be that they're banning a radio tech (and in a specific context, without regard for what ever someone is saying over that radio), not speech itself. See that person in the seat next to you? Tell 'em how unfair King George's tea taxes are, and how unfair it is that Parliament doesn't ave a seat for us. The FCC won't stop you.

The reason we should shoot this down, is that there's no technical reason to ban the tech. The FCC doing this is merely a horrible. unnecessary, and

I completely agree with you, but how long until an airline gets sued because a passenger was unable to take an emergency-related call? Reasonable policy exceptions must be allowed.

How is that different from a user whose phone battery ran out? Or one who forgot to top up his pay-as-you-go plan? Or one who has turned off their phone in a cinema? Has any cinema ever been sued because someone was unable to take an emergency-related call? What about a person who doesn't have a mobile phone?

but how long until an airline gets sued because a passenger was unable to take an emergency-related call?

If you leave it to the market and then a passenger chooses to buy a ticket on a no-phones airline, then it's the call receiver who is responsible for declining the emergency call. "Our customer wanted to be in a phoneless environment and paid for that, furthermore demonstrating his preference. Sue him for not taking your call."

Furthermore, it's hard to imagine any scenario where anyone could ever have a reasonable expectation for being able to take an emergency call. Even if I fab an extreme over-the-top example (as I, like anyone, would love to do).

Guy happens to be the Last Doctor In The World. He says, "I want to fly on someone else's airplane, but I want to not listen to anyone else talking." So he buys a ticket on a no-phones airline. While waiting in the terminal, he turns off his phone. One second later, the President's wife calls him, and leaves this voice mail: "The President is choking on pizza! What do I do? WHAT DO I DO!?" but since the doctor turned off his phone, he doesn't see the call come in. He boards his flight, oblivious to the coming disaster.

Mid-flight, one of the passengers starts talking to another passenger. The doctor screams, "hey, shut the fuck up!" and everyone quiets down, because you never know when you might want to be on The Last Doctor In The World's good side. The captain makes an announcement over the intercom. The doctor glares, hatefully. He doesn't make a scene, but he writes the captain's name in his no-treatment book. The engines drone on, and he grimaces with discomfort, noting he's never going to treat anyone who works at Boeing, where they make such loud engines.

An hour later, he gets off the plane. He turns on his phone, and sees a bunch of voicemails from the First Lady. He calls her back. "Get your husband to cough up the pizza," he offers, rolling his eyes, but his advice has arrived too late. The president has already asphyxiated to death.

Unfortunately, right after the president's death, a bill arrived on his desk, which would have outlawed mass puppy shredding. It didn't get signed quickly, because it took a while for the then-vice-president to catch up. So one hundred thousand puppies where shredded, while it was still legal to do so. One of those puppies had an important passphrase tattooed on its ear, but now it has been shredded. Without the passphrase, no one was able to stop the nuclear launch that resulted in the deaths of three billion people.

One of the people whose gardener died in the nuclear war, sues Samsung for designing a phone that has an off switch, based on the idea that people HAVE TO receive emergency calls, no matter what anyone (even the owner of the phone) wants.

You're on the jury. What's your decision? If you rule in favor of the plaintiff, Samsung owes someone $3 to replace the plant that the dead gardener never got around to watering. And I will harbor a hypothetical-$3 grudge against you, from now to the end of time. OTOH, if you rule for the defendent, then I agree with you, my friend. What's it going to be?

There's nothing that someone trapped in a plane could do about an emergency. Well, all the business people will claim that the sales call was an emergency, but if your kid is home bleeding out, any call to you should have been made to 911, and after that, call the phone and leave a message, you'll get it when you land, when you can conceivably go to the hospital or whatever. Knowing your kid is near death 4 hours sooner has no effect on the situation.

But but but... the government has to tell us how to live our lives. Without the government we won't know how to treat other people or that we are supposed to breath air to survive. Could you imagine the chaos if the government told us they did not require us to breathe air? People would try to breath sand in the unregulated aftermath.

They shouldn't ban it - they should just charge an arm and a leg for the service. Something like $5 per minute.

Phones at the seats are not new to airplanes. The prior phones were too expensive for any casual use - though I have never flown first class, so I don't know if people were being annoying with them up there.

We shall all fly at the lowest common denominator, because that's how the US airline industry works. No airline enforces the rules on carry-on bag size so everyone can get on and off the plane in less than 20 minutes, or offers no-crying-baby flights, or more legroom, or still serves real food in coach. If one allows phone calls, the rest will within a week.

"That's fine, right up until 1 airline allows it, and you start seeing their flight prices just a nudge below everyone elses. "

Very good point. I'm in the airline IT business. Airlines may be deregulated in the US, but every time one does something, the others follow. If Delta raises or lowers their fares by $10, United will do the same thing, often the same day. Same thing goes for inflight service changes -- if something that was free suddenly becomes an "ancillary revenue stream," you can bet that the ot

People are running for a government solution when there isn't even a problem yet? And you wonder how they feel that warrentless wiretapping and text scanning isn't seen as a problem by these same kinds of people?

I personally don't want to see it either but another peice of legislation isn't the required route for this.

People are running for a government solution when there isn't even a problem yet? And you wonder how they feel that warrentless wiretapping and text scanning isn't seen as a problem by these same kinds of people?

I personally don't want to see it either but another peice of legislation isn't the required route for this.

Mommy... I have to pee... Mommy... I need a glass of water. Mommy... why does the man sitting next to us have this funny mask over his eyes? Is he playing a game? Can I play too? HEY! Do you have an extra mask? What are we playing?

Mommy... I have to pee... Mommy... I need a glass of water. Mommy... why does the man sitting next to us have this funny mask over his eyes? Is he playing a game? Can I play too? HEY! Do you have an extra mask? What are we playing?

What's your point? That, because one potential annoyance already exists, we should allow all potential annoyances?

You realize this happens on planes already, right? People are loud, rude, obnoxious, drink-spilling, stinky, barfing, etc. on airplanes all the time.

I was flying back from Canada, and the guy in the next seat was buying booze for the whole row. It was a night flight (not a red-eye), and we were a little loud. Not rowdy, mind you, just a little animated. You know what happens when somebody gets loud on a plane? The flight attendant asks you to be more quiet and respectful of the other passengers. It only ta

Very true. We had to catch a red-eye out of Vegas one time on the way back from Hawaii. Man, that was rough. There was a bachelor party that boarded just before we took off. The flight attendant did the best she could, but every half hour or so, she'd have to go back there and hush them up. Here I was thinking my 2 year old was going to be the loud one on the flight, but he slept like a... well, you know.

I seriously wonder why this debate continues. I've left my phone on and tried to use it during flight. I can't get a signal. Period. This entire debate is superfluous unless the airlines want to put microcells on the places and charge an arm and a leg for it like they used to for the in seat phones. If the call is that important, they can pay the $5 a minute to make the call.

I've never tried to make a call but I have happily sent texts during a flight before. I can't say I paid much attention to it at the time, but I'm pretty sure I had a good bar or two of reception, at least whilst over land, so I'm guessing a call could have worked ok too. I'm sure the sitting-in-a-metal-tube thing won't help but presumably the windows allow enough RF to pass through.

Also, some of the passengers of 'flight 93' made calls to their loved ones during the 9/11 hijackings.

Service provider, type of plane, and how high? I doubt you'll be able to do it. There's also some debate about how the "flight 93" survivors made their calls. Something that the 9/11 truth guys bring up. If you're flying a typical flight at cruising altitude you will be too high to make the calls. You were probably low enough to make the calls. Here's an interesting read on the whole flight 93 call thing: http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html [wtc7.net]

I would be fine with SMS texting only. But allowing people to talk on their phone, would be a huge discomfort to passengers. The problem is most people (including me) talk louder when on the phone. A little of this falls on the lack of good technology to allow quiet conversations to take place on phone calls.

In the end I hope FCC continues the ban of talking on the phone while in flight, but allowing texting.

I would be fine with SMS texting only. But allowing people to talk on their phone, would be a huge discomfort to passengers. The problem is most people (including me) talk louder when on the phone. A little of this falls on the lack of good technology to allow quiet conversations to take place on phone calls.
In the end I hope FCC continues the ban of talking on the phone while in flight, but allowing texting.

The silly thing about this debate is that the FCC regulates RF spectrum, and the FAA regulates aviation safety, but the only thing anyone can say about cell phones on airplanes is that people use them in an annoying manner... sometimes. Complain to your airline, friends, business associates, and family... but please do not stand in the way of technology to prevent what you think might be a mild annoyance.

Americans are now wholly incapable of thinking for themselves. Instead of insisting that airlines provide the service they want, and voting with their money, they want to tell the government to force everyone to go along with those who shout the loudest. If there's no safety issue with cell phones, is it even the government's business? Most airlines will ban phone usage, except perhaps in business class or wherever else warranted. Some won't, and for those who can't cut the (to

The FCC regulations that banned cell phone usage on planes were based on the idea that the phones EM emissions might interfere with the operation of the airplane's equipment. That has absolutely nothing to do with "regulating behavior they find annoying" and is exactly the type of regulation that the FCC was intended to oversee.

In the time since those regulations were put in place, it's become increasingly clear that cell phones won't cause interference with the plane's equipment. The FCC is now considering revising the regulations according to the new information. This is what they should be doing and it should be encouraged.

In the process of reconsidering those regulations, they asked for input from the public. This is also what they should be doing and it should be encouraged.

It's not the FCC's fault that a bunch of people freaked out and submitted "OMG Nooooo!" comments that had absolutely nothing to do with what the FCC is actually regulating. I feel sorry for whoever has to sort through all of those comments to see if there is anything valid buried in them.

Who really wins if the FAA/FCC ban inflight cell coverage? The airlines that have built a pay service for internet connections. If we allow cellular coverage in the air, they lose a revenue stream. The airlines already have processes in place for annoying passengers. If you are really annoyed by the person next to you they don't need new rules to deal with yapping on a cell phone. On the other hand, I would enjoy being able to read news while traveling. I would enjoy getting work done with reference materia

Who really wins if the FAA/FCC ban inflight cell coverage? The airlines that have built a pay service for internet connections. If we allow cellular coverage in the air, they lose a revenue stream. The airlines already have processes in place for annoying passengers. If you are really annoyed by the person next to you they don't need new rules to deal with yapping on a cell phone. On the other hand, I would enjoy being able to read news while traveling. I would enjoy getting work done with reference materials available while traveling. Please don't knee jerk away a gain for consumers.

Nobody wins. Airlines are prevented from providing inflight cellular service. Consumers are prevented from having more choices.

Unless the executive branch of government wants more control of our personal lives, in that case at least some entity wins.

Many cellphones - even if in airplane mode - still allow the GPS antenna to be used. You won't be able to download maps while in airplane mode, but if you are just using a simple app like "GPSTest" (which displays coordinates/speed), it works just fine.

the fcc is not responsible for making laws preventing annoyance... they are responsible for safety. it shouldnt be up to the FCC to ban talking on cell phones, it should be up to the airline to decide whether they want to ban talking or not.

Thankfully I have a shorter commute these days, but my last job involved an hour-and-a-half trip each direction on the train. The thing that bothered me most wasn't the time, the crowded trains, the hours i had to get up in the morning. No, it was the people yapping on their phones. Imagine a 5:50 AM commuter train with totally dead people half-asleep, then some idiot starts screaming into their phone and doesn't shut up for the entire trip. Now imagine that same scenario, but now you're inches away from that idiot crammed into a coach seat for a 14 hour flight to Japan. I fly a fair amount of these incredibly long trips for work, and I think I'd rather poke a hole in my eardrums with a sharp instrument than listen to 14 hours of inane banter or some exec screaming at his subordinate or assistant.

People just don't get that (a) you don't need to shout anymore, and (b) no one wants to hear about the divorce case you're working on, the colon polyp you had removed, your escapades out at the bar last night, your cat, your dog, your kids or any of the large number of conversations I've heard.

The other thing that's nice for the truly crazy business people I know (I'm not one of them) is that airplane time is dead time -- no one is sending you messages, no one can reach you, etc.

I heard this was because mobile phones don't echo (instantly) back your own voice like a landline does. Either the echo convinces your brain that you're talking too loudly, or the fact that you don't hear it on a mobile phone convinces your brain that something's broken and you need to shout louder. I'd guess the former, given that today's young'uns still seem to be doing it, dagnabbit.

Airlines have had wired phones on seat backs for years without any problems or public outcry. The only difference between them and cell phones are that the users don't have to pay the airline to use their cell phones.

Sure it's annoying to have the person next to you yacking on a cell phone, but it's also annoying to have them snoring, talking loudly, crying, etc.

We need to stop making a big deal out of the fact the we're annoyed and appreciate the fact that we can travel thousands of miles without anybody

Philosophically speaking, it doesn't make sense to ban people talking on the phone and not ban people talking to the person next to them. I've never heard anyone asking the FCC (or slightly more reasonably the FAA) to regulate the volume people can speak on the plane.

Practically speaking, people tend to speak more loudly when they are speaking on the phone. Normally, this is not necessary. Part of the problem is that unlike landlines (remember them?), you don't get the feedback in the earpiece of your own voice when you're speaking on a mobile phone. Psychologically, this creates a desire to "speak up". This could be helped immensely big changing the way the hardware works.

You could also require the use of some sort of external headset that provides feedback and eliminates background noise better than the existing phones.

Most importantly, educating people that they don't need to speak that loudly into mobile phones could go a long way. And not only on airplanes.

Cellphones on plane would be annoying, but as long as it's not dangerous, that's purely a business problem. The FCC shouldn't be getting involved with enforcing various people's aesthetics on others; that's not it's job.

With many airlines now offering Wifi on board people will sidestep the any phone ruling. A skype call on your laptop using a headset is exactly the same as a phone call but without all the cellular issues.

...where Schwarzenegger kills that guy sitting next to him on the plane. That would be me. And I don't want to go to prison. I would only fly on airlines that prohibit it. But based on the disdain they show for they customers, I'm sure they all would allow it.

But isn't this all moot? Unless you are using a satellite phone how exactly is a cell phone supposed to get a signal within a flying plane? I am no expert, but isn't the signals transmitted by ground based stations? I am not sure that they A) have the range, or B) are omni-directional (i.e up). Perhaps at low altitude close to a tower, or on the runway, but I am not sure how well cell technology is going to operate at 30,000ft over nothing.

Seems to indicate that it may be possible, but likely not, and even if it was, impractical.

Wifi is an interesting idea, as it could be used for connectivity. Then again the connection that is used is a satellite one, which likely has some bandwidth restrictions, and is likely costly to operate beyond a certain point.

The FCC's role in all of this should be is there a safety reason not to allow the phones on planes. The fact that it will be annoying and obnoxious should be left up to the market to decide. If some airlines offer cell free flights, and the public wants that, then those airlines will profit by increased ridership. If not, then their competitors will benefit. Not every problem needs to be solved by the government.

Getting up in arms about cell phones on planes is all fine and good. Frankly, however, I'd rather see people be getting upset about the net neutrality ruling and demanding the FCC appeal the outcome. That will have a greater long term impact than conversations on planes.

The FCC's job here is to create rules to promote safety. If it's an annoyance issue then the airlines should be the ones making rules about it. We don't need the FCC legislating cell phone use in movie theaters and cell phone use in planes can be dealt with the same way - anyone who won't stop talking on their phone in the theater/plane will be made to leave.

We don't need the FCC legislating cell phone use in movie theaters and cell phone use in planes can be dealt with the same way

Well... I'd like to think the FAA should become involved. Allowing behaviour which is pretty much guaranteed to piss of passengers and crews to the point of pulling out weapons (i.e. that shooting in a Florida theater the other day over texting) should be considered a flight safety issue and should be regulated by air safety authorities.

Im sorry but that doesnt seem to hold weight. Thanks for not wearing deodorant, you smell terrible, I cant believe I have to sit next to you for 6 hours, I could murder you. Should the FCC deal with BO as well?

No, the FCC's job here is to regulate the use of a limited public resource so that it remains productive and usable. The only "safety" feature of the FCC rules are the standards for RF emissions to protect people from injury from RF energy.

The current cell phone ban from the FCC has nothing to do with safety, it is a side effect of the existing regulation based on ITU treaties regarding the use of specific bands of of frequencies. The allocation for a major part of the cell phone frequencies is LAND mobi

Allow cell phone calls on airplanes, but only from inside a soundproof booth in the back of the plane.

Preferably one which is neither pressurized nor filled with air, and equipped with an ejection mechanism.

Nobody wants to be stuck on a long flight with some wanker who insists on being on a conference call the whole time. Or some idiot having a fight with his wife. Or someone making kissy-face noises to his girlfriend.

Things will eventually get ugly, and people will get hurt if this happens. I figure und

The "noise" that noise-cancelling headphones cancel are sounds that have a consistent volume, like the constant drone (no pun intended) of the aircraft engines. The headphones do not cancel sounds like other people's conversations, at least not very well.

You are right (they are particularly bad at muffling baby cries to any degree, it seems), but they don't need to be perfect. Especially so if there is a decent selection of stuff to listen to on the armrest jack. Just good enough to keep sanity above zero is what is needed.

If you're old enough, you might remember when airplanes had smoking and non-smoking sections separated by an imaginary barrier between two rows (restaurants used to do that too, it was like they thought there were little Maxwell's Demons whacking the smoke particles back as they tried to drift out of the smoking area). I can see the airline industry going in that direction with cell phones. Of course they'll charge extra for it, but I'm not sure if you'll have to pay more to sit there or not sit there.

okay hows about this lets say you have a 5 by 10 section of airplane (total 50 seats) of those 12 folks are trying to deal with Pteromerhanophobia claustrophobia and or acrophobia (and may be drinking) also you have 9 vets with cracked heads (PTSD and Schizoaffective with a side order of Bipolar) add to to that a few GangBangers.

Do you really want to be in seat F5 when somebody has a panic attack (in D2) and starts getting violent??

How are they chatting you up if you're wearing headphones? Just ignore them, and if they tap you on the arm to get your attention, ask them not to touch you.
Besides, I'm sure they aren't talking at the top of their lungs at you, but most likely are while on the phone.